​​​​​

​

 

Mr President, I rise to respond to the Premier's state of the state address. I did smile when in the Premier's first sentence he mentioned a re‑elected government with a fresh mandate. That is an interesting take on the 2024 election result. I did find it ironic when the House of Assembly increased from 25 to 35 with the Premier's hope that more Liberal candidates would be elected. An intriguing result, no increase in the number of 14 Liberals from the previous election were on board.

 

Indeed, all 10 newly elected members, including members of the Jacqui Lambie Network, the Greens and independents, and all 10 were not supportive of a new AFL stadium commitment at Macquarie Point. I am not certain 14 members out of 35 gives you a mandate, however. It comes as no surprise that the AFL stadium did not even get a mention in the Premier's state of the state. I will come back to that.

 

As highlighted by the Premier, the re‑elected government has indeed delivered on some critical issues, recruiting additional healthcare workers, delivering 4000 social and affordable homes, cutting hospital ramping hours, providing Tasmanians with a suite of cost-of-living funding supports and renewing its focus on a strong economy are all commendable. While some individuals have questioned the veracity of those comments, if accurate, I will applaud the government on these outcomes.

 

Let us not overlook nor understate the dire state of Tasmania's budget as mentioned by all previous speakers. The handling of the Spirit of Tasmania and TasPorts issue, the Macquarie Point stadium development that is polarising Tasmania and I fear has the potential to cause intergenerational debt for Tasmanians and now the announcement of the possible privatisation of GBEs, which definitely was not a part of an election promise discussion or even a suggestion. No mandate there.

 

The Premier centralised his address on ensuring a strong economy. As he notes, the economy is vital to all functions of the government and promotes jobs, retaining Tasmanians, cost-of-living relief and health and infrastructure upgrades. However, solely focusing on the economy risks overlooking the less fortunate. To do best by Tasmanians, the Tasmanian government needs to ensure it looks to those less fortunate, who are stricken by the housing and cost-of‑living crisis while focusing on the economy, business growth and taking a rising tide lifts all boats approach; the government should still be mindful of those less able to make use of a growing economy.

Additionally, the Premier noted the Tasmanian debt-revenue ratio is strong, however, debt-revenue ratio is not the sole indicator of economic health. While business conditions may be set to improve, the government must make sure it does not leave those less fortunate behind in pursuit of business growth. For example, poorer families are not able to start businesses nor take out loans to support their existing small business. As such, they are particularly vulnerable to economic shocks. Even if the economy rises and small businesses are promoted, the poor families see less of a benefit from this than those with wealth to take advantage.

 

Indeed, the government's intention to conduct a detailed assessment of the benefits of moving several entities out of the government ownership has, as I have heard from constituents, the undertones of a fire sale. The Premier discussed the need to reach economies of scale and promote efficiency across government departments. While in favour of an efficient and effective government, I would like to caution against privatisation as a necessary means to achieving such ends.

 

While careful and selective privatisation can promote efficiency, there is more to the provision of government services than a surplus benefiting the bottom line. Tasmanians with lower socioeconomic status benefit from government services such as the Metro bus service, and great care should be taken to ensure they are not left behind in the name of increasing government efficiency.

 

Projects such as the Metro bus service provide economic equalisation in transport options to the lowest on the economic ladder. The bus market in Tasmania naturally relies on a monopoly to provide cohesive service, especially given the low population of Tasmania and especially in regional areas. Privatising such an industry risks sacrificing the public benefit of Metro Tasmania for the sake of the budget bottom line, however, this does not mean initiatives cannot be taken to increase efficiency of government programs.

 

Wasteful spending and inefficiencies can and should be rectified and, in some cases, privatisation is a viable option to be considered. Looking to other jurisdictions for lessons, and consideration of entities such as the Motor Accidents Insurance Board may be in the best interest of the state. However, drastic budget actions should be taken with care. The sale of Government Business Enterprises (GBEs) may assist the coffers for the government of the day, but we must ensure the privatisation of any GBE is for the betterment of each and every Tasmanian, both now and into the future.

 

The Premier's address noted that last year the Business Council of Australia released its study on the best places to do business in the country. Tasmania came in number two. That is an excellent ranking. Indeed, the Reserve Bank's recent decision to lower the cash rate is a welcome relief for small businesses grappling with rising operating costs and fluctuating customer spending.

 

Despite these challenges, the resilience and optimism of small business in my electorate, the Mersey region, remains strong. However, high operating expenses and difficulties in finding suitable staff continue to weigh heavily on the small business environment. The growth of new business start‑ups has also significantly slowed for regional areas outside of Hobart, highlighting the need for more robust support for business innovation and entrepreneurship in the Mersey and outlying areas.

 

Issues such as infrastructure, freight, housing, transport, skills and renewable energy projects are among the economic challenges and priorities for Devonport's key industries and businesses. I do not think people realise - I attended a breakfast run by the Devonport Chamber of Commerce recently and listened to the business people, and one thing the hotels said is that they cannot get taxis to take the people from Devonport into the city. There are not enough taxis to get people from the airport into the town. Now the ferry is not there, the little ferry that used to operate, it makes it difficult for people to get off the Spirits to get over the other side. You see them walking with their suitcases and bags across the other side, two or three kilometres, because there are no taxis. I do not think people realise the issue. In fact, two of the hotels, like down here, have had to put their own buses on to cater for that shortage of staff, I suppose.

 

The Devonport Chamber of Commerce and Industry (DCCI) in my electorate is calling for action on red tape reduction ‑ which is great ‑ housing, renewable energy projects, transport and greater support for small businesses to unlock growth opportunities. The business community requires the right supports to attract investment, great jobs and sustain the communities that depend on them. The president of the DCCI, Claire Connelly, states:

 

One way the state government can provide relief to small‑ and medium‑sized businesses is by adjusting the payroll tax threshold in line with wage inflation. The current rate has not been adjusted since 2018 and the threshold has remained unchanged since 2013.

 

While the state government has long‑term plans for the greater Launceston and Hobart, there is a noticeable lack of a comprehensive plan for the north-west coast. Devonport faces lower participation rates, a lower socioeconomic index for areas, and residents with fewer university qualifications than Tasmania as a whole.

 

Whilst I welcome the government's continued and crucial focus on tourism, business owners in my electorate continue to stress the need for greater support for other sectors such as construction, health care, social assistance, transport, postal and warehousing, manufacturing and agriculture. The north-west coast is the engine room of the state's economy, especially with agriculture, and small business is the backbone.

 

The Premier noted the overwhelming number of licences, compliance requirements and regulatory obligations placed on start‑up businesses. Tasmania is reliant on its hospitality and tourism industries, made up primarily of small businesses. However, across the local and state‑level regulatory schemes, Tasmania stifles the creation of small businesses and discourages entrepreneurs.

 

I would like to identify two key areas of regulatory inefficiency that could be improved: compliance schemes which over‑regulate and impose especially onerous safety obligations and those overlapping state and local compliance schemes that do not work in harmony. Regarding over‑regulation, lessons can be learnt from recent changes to the Western Australian regulation of identified low health risk activities such as hairdressing.

 

The Western Australian government shifted from a mandatory accreditation scheme to one requiring compliance to an industry guideline. Such a change reduces the red tape that businesses face while providing a more effective and contemporary way of managing the industry's public health risks.

Ms Rattray - What a good idea.

 

Mr GAFFNEY - That was the Government of Western Australia Department of Health 2024 October Hairdressers and Barbers (TBC). It was something they have introduced and it has been successful.

 

Ms Rattray - They are leaders over there.

 

Mr GAFFNEY - The overlap of state and local government compliance schemes causing inefficiency is one that can be improved. As the Premier states, local and state government can and should work together to promote industry safety while reducing red tape.

 

My fellow colleagues may recall, in August last year, I highlighted the incredible work of our state's volunteering industry and the advocacy of Volunteering Tasmania as the state's peak body to foster an inclusive, thriving and celebrated culture of community participation. I am pleased to note that Volunteering Tasmania is now engaging closely with the government on the development of Tasmania's first volunteering strategy as part of the 2030 Strong Plan for Tasmania's Future.

 

However, the development of the strategy and action plans are overdue as formal volunteering declines and barriers increase. Ongoing challenges such as increased regulation, red tape and out‑of‑pocket costs for volunteers associated with Registration to Work with Vulnerable People checks must be urgently addressed. I remind colleagues that the volunteering industry is Tasmania's largest industry. The State of Volunteering Report 2023 highlighted that 332,100, or 69.8 per cent, of Tasmanians aged 15 years and over volunteered their time in 2023, providing $12.1 billion in economic benefit for the state. Formal volunteering, however, is declining. It is estimated without significant strategic intervention and investment in the systems that support volunteering that by 2029 there will be a 42 per cent gap between the demand for and the supply of volunteers in Tasmania. This decline is alarming, and in a cost ‑of‑living crisis, volunteers are increasingly in demand.

 

I have previously asked in this Chamber: what happens when formal volunteers are not there? Who will replace them and who will pay the cost? In 2023 alone, it would have cost the state $3.6 billion to replace the cost of volunteers with paid labour. Volunteers are an integral part of our community and economy. Volunteering Tasmania's budget priority submission sets out clear pathways to better support the industry and foster its growth.

 

I support the sensible measures outlined by Volunteering Tasmania in its submission to secure the future of our volunteering industry. I request my fellow honourable members continue to do the same.

 

Whilst on the volunteering theme, I bring your attention to the Community Transport Services Tasmania, the CTST. CTST is a statewide, community‑based not‑for‑profit organisation that provides affordable, shared door‑to‑door community transport. I am aware that it operates in most of the regions. I am happy to report that a recent merger between CTST and Mersey Community Care Association (MCCA), an organisation in the Mersey electorate, is now completed. This is where those organisations see the writing on the wall and they are trying to work together. The significant milestone in the long history of both organisations was a product of many years of discussions, exploration and planning. The CTST and the MCCA boards believed that joining together was the best way to achieve their shared vision and commitment to delivering high-quality services to clients - to live independently and be well‑connected in their community.

 

The result of this merger is an incredibly special Tasmanian organisation, with their impact reaching over 10,000 Tasmanians from all parts of the state. That is 10,000 Tasmanians who benefit from this organisation. It is particularly pleasing that the new organisational structure was achieved whilst ensuring positions for all workers across the combined business. Not one worker lost a job. I was patron ‑ except me.

 

Ms Rattray - You lost your job.

 

Mr GAFFNEY - I was. I was patron of the Mersey Community Care Association for many years ‑ a role I really enjoyed. However, the newly formed merger will be exceptionally advantageous and does not need a patron. I am certain, however, that I will be invited to the Christmas barbecue. It is probably because I arrive with a humongous Anvers chocolate cake.

 

I have said before in this place that carers are the true heroes of our community. They work and they do it selflessly, with a sense of love, kindness, friendship and duty, without the prior thought for paid reward.

 

Kin Raising Kids Tasmania is a group that encourages and supports kinship carers, both formal and informal and who are the primary carers of diverse family and kin. The Carer Recognition Act 2023 recognises unpaid kin carers, and yet these carers, such as grandparents, are not getting any additional payments to help ease the burden on their already stretched pension payment and often end up using their superannuation to make ends meet.

 

Indeed, the Tasmanian Carer Action Plan 2021-2025 action summary states the following:

 

Recognition

 

1.6: Recommence and expand community education, awareness-raising of informal kinship care and support available

 

that is with DPAC -

 

Access and participation …

 

2.6 Implement improved supports for informal kinship carers, utilising co-design

 

The Frank Ogle report instigated by the state government in 2021 recognised informal kinship care in Tasmania, and the government undertook to implement all eight recommendations from that report. I have been reliably informed that the very groups that the recommendations affect have not received an update or any further consultation since 2021.

 

The Community Kinship Governance Group, which has representation from Baptcare, Mission Australia, Kin Raising Kids and the Department of Communities, is struggling to move forward due to lack of direction from the government. There appears to be no recurring funding for this to occur.

There is a growing need for resources and support services in the Mersey electorate and the greater west and north-west area. Longstanding problems in the alcohol and other drug services across Tasmania remain, and are getting worse on the north-west coast. The community-managed alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, the ATDC and the sector it represents is grossly underfunded, and despite investment in the reform agenda, community organisations are not seeing the impact on the ground for the Tasmanians who access their services.

 

Access to the detoxification services by people on the north-west coast remains difficult. A shrinking alcohol and other drug workforce, undermined by rises in real costs and uncertainty in funding and continuing reports that the system is hard to access by Tasmanians, means that people on the north-west coast are not receiving the services they need to thrive in their local community.

 

Community organisations delivering alcohol, tobacco and other drug services across Tasmania are facing a nervous wait on notification of fulfilment of the promise of five-year funding agreements. Many ATDC member services have been asked for a six-month renewal period prior to their contract and to help with planning. Yet, for most, they will not know what funding they will get and for how long until the end of May - only a matter of weeks before their contracts end.

 

I went to the TasCOSS conference and listened to some of the people in that sector, saying that their job contract is up in June. They do not find out the funding they get until May, and they are looking for jobs in other places for security; the north-west coast loses out. That creates greater problems with people who need their assistance.

 

According to my information, the Tasmanian government promised five-year contracts from July 2025 onwards. There is still no notification of that funding and here we are in the middle of March. We cannot afford to let the wrecking ball of short-term contracts and uncertainty continue to undermine our workforce and organisations.

 

Speaking of workforce, we urgently need long-dated, certain and adequate funding to not only support existing peer workers, but to build the peer workforce now and into the future. Right now, peer worker funding elapses in June, with no indication of whether this will be continued.

 

With all the above in mind, how can services plan and ensure continuity of services to existing Tasmanians? They work with draft budgets for the next financial year and retain their workforce. We all have seen sectors where familiarity shortcuts a lot of issues and if you have had the same worker or they know the area, if they cannot get job security, they leave and they go to other areas. The north-west coast and the west coast and other areas down the east coast are marginalised because of that.

 

In an environment where funding is tight and the message is one of austerity, providing certainty in current funding levels seems a sensible middle ground to supporting existing services. There is an ongoing media and community interest in alcohol and other drugs. It affects most Tasmanians, with over 80 per cent of people choosing to drink alcohol. The question remains, why are the support services so grossly underfunded? Government funding needs to support vulnerable Tasmanians.

 

On 29 October 2024, this place considered and noted the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission's yearly report. The National Commissioner for Domestic Family and Sexual Violence, Micaela Cronin, suggested there needs to be an increased focus on men: the need to be having vastly different conversations with our men, the need for greater accountability for men and the need to talk more about men. Commissioner Cronin emphasised that men must be part of the solution.

 

We have just acknowledged and supported International Women's Day and I was so fortunate to hear from JackJumpers CEO Christine Finnegan at a breakfast event held last Friday in Devonport organised by the DCCI. Christine was a wonderful speaker and over 135 attendees were all suitably impressed with her presentation.

 

Each year I acknowledge and recognise International Men's Day on 19 November. I host a free community picnic event in my electorate, BBQ at Bellsy, to celebrate this occasion. Supporting and promoting the wellbeing of men and boys in Tasmania is an issue close to my heart. Men's Resources Tasmania is a community-based, not-for-profit organisation that do precisely that.

 

I have suggested previously I remain steadfast that just as we have portfolio responsibilities with so many other groups in the population, I urge the government to consider an office for men. Whilst there is a minister for women, a commissioner for young people and children, there is no significant office or responsibility for men. How can they be part of the solution when they are not given the support they need? That is not to take away from the women's needs and the children's needs, and I am the first one there to do that. However, in this society we are trying to get away from inequity and there is not the funding there that should be. There is a real need and urgency for a peak advocacy body to represent men and boys in Tasmania -

 

Ms O'Connor - Call the Liberal Party.

 

Mr GAFFNEY - I find that really offensive.

 

Madam ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Order.

 

Ms Palmer - Liberal women fighting the good fight, thank you.

 

Madam ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - The member for Mersey is on his feet.

 

Mr GAFFNEY - At a time when gender issues have captured the media and community attention, men need to be part of the solution at the forefront and there are some of us that really want to do that. Unlike the many women's groups that have appeared to have a more connected and collaborative support network, men's groups are not that far advanced and we are disparate. We need something to pull ourselves together as men, so that we can help rectify some of the issues that are happening and that is all we are asking for is a body that would do that statewide and we can do it on an oily rag - we do not care. We want to be involved in the solution.

 

There are many individual males and men's groups in Tasmania who provide a wonderful service. However, they need assistance in a wide range of community building blocks. These building blocks include planning, events and activities, communication, cooperation and affirmation. I have always been impressed by Men's Resources Tasmania and feel that they are best placed to represent men in the state. I fully support Men's Resources Tasmania as a peak body to represent the health and wellbeing interests of men and boys and work with our females in the state to improve what is happening.

 

Many of us in this Chamber would have been contacted previously by concerned north-west coast mental health advocate Tim McCarthy. Mr McCarthy undertakes ongoing advocacy as a Tasmanian with his own lived experience and as a parent/carer, with no confidence that existing channels of communication effectively expose the dangerous nature of a system that is demonstrably failing Tasmanians. Mr McCarthy has real concerns about a number of issues, especially on the north-west coast:

 

• access to specialist psychiatry services supports

• effective coordination of services

• prioritisation of scarce resources

• the efficient use of digital technology

• the Hobart‑centric top‑down mentality in service provision, community engagement and staffing issues.

 

With regard to psychiatric support on the north-west coast, Mr McCarthy states:

 

Inpatient and community components of the Acute Mental Health Program are under considerable ongoing stress, and are consistently unable to meet all legitimate demands for services, certainly in the North West of Tasmania. I am aware of a patient discharged from Spencer Clinic after a 14‑day stay following attempted suicide, who was unable to receive ongoing care from the Community Mental Health team because no vacancy existed. A follow‑up call from Spencer was not received for 10 weeks. According to staff, patients can be prematurely discharged from the care of the Community Mental Health team to nail the admission of a more urgent case to the program.

 

There is very little follow‑up in that most sensitive period where support needs to be there.

 

The reality, for those who must use the private system, is that waiting times to see a psychiatrist, in Launceston or Hobart, are lengthy and out‑of‑pocket costs are prohibitive. Consequently, an increasing number of vulnerable Tasmanians are deprived of access to specialist medical management of their illness. This includes the effective monitoring of complex drug regimens and, in some cases, even access to a prescription, when a psychiatrist must provide it. There is no evidence that improving access to this basic feature of quality, holistic care is regarded as being of urgent priority. The economic and, more importantly, human costs of this failure, are abundantly clear.

 

He also raised a salient point that there is no comprehensive, coordinated Tasmanian Telehealth policy/plan/directory available to guide service providers and the general community in an environment where face‑to‑face options are severely limited. Not only do they not have face to face, there is not a plan available, and significant literacy deficiencies have been identified.

 

Mr McCarthy is concerned that proposed Medicare mental health centres for Burnie and Devonport were promised in 2022, and their eventual appearance is currently subject to various rumours, because no responsible party recognises the need to communicate what is now proposed, regarding timing or service parameters. North-west regional meetings regularly feature glowing reports on the undoubted quality of Hobart's Peacock Centre, but no information is available on the aforementioned north-west centres.

 

It is Mr McCarthy's reasonable expectation that the government undertakes a collaborative approach to implementing measures that lead to improvements in the mental health space.

 

Earlier this week I spoke about that Tasmanian Voluntary Assisted Dying Commission annual report. I will not go over that conversation again, but I would like to acknowledge that navigators, the pharmacists and clinical service practitioners all agreed that a Tas VAD portal is now becoming critical in their ability to provide a service. I heard mention here recently that the government is introducing a portal for one of their initiatives they have just started. I do hope some of the portals they have been wanting for the last two or three years eventuate as well.

 

I will mention, in this place, the important review happening at the end of this year.  I was recently contact by a coordinator of the Tasmanian Online Access Centre (OAC), as I was aware, were my fellow members. The member for McIntyre spoke eloquently about online access centres, so there is no need for me to repeat her sentiments. However, I would put on record the first centre began in operation in Devonport in May 1998.

 

Online access centres encourage their communities back into learning and build individual and community capacity. The supportive atmosphere at the centres facilitate participation in learning activities, with success stories from courses leading to formally accredited outcomes and also informal non‑accredited outcomes, which are just as valuable, to individuals and community development. I encourage the government to further uphold its digital inclusion services in Tasmania to deliver on the ongoing funding for the Tasmanian Online Access Centres. I thought I would give Tasmania's peak industry body a plug in this year's speech. That is the Hemp Association. They recently held a very successful education community information weekend at Cressy, highlighting industrial hemp.

 

While the hemp industry in Tasmania is still in its infant stages, and the THA is not yet financially independent, both have made significant steps forward. Continued government support, along with the increased public education, is vital for the sector's growth and contribution to Tasmania's economy. That is the sort of place we should be investing some finance, to support that type of industry.

 

As I have mentioned previously, somewhat bemused that the Premier's state of the state address did not mention, to any extent, the proposed Macquarie Point Stadium. I thought it would have got a guernsey - that was a joke. Whilst now is not the time for my views, I thought it would be remiss of me not to provide a comment from a couple of Tasmanians, who wrote:

 

It is so distressing that controversy has once again become Tasmania's default position, so needlessly dividing the Tasmanian community.

 

While we all wait for the report (that we have) that will provide independently verified, accurate and some actual evidence about why this divisive project should be considered a project of state significance, as well as the reasons for the planning body reaching that conclusion, we remain among the 60 per cent or more Tasmanians who continue to argue strongly against the project and supposed and inflated benefits.

 

I believe the last one was 67 per cent from the north were against the project, 65 per cent in the north-west, and 52 per cent down south.

 

As you will also have to vote on the PoSS, we urge you to read and carefully consider the conclusions of at least three accredited and independent economists. They have all analysed both the cost benefits, as well as the risks about the project, and gave it a big fat fail. They were essentially universal in their opinion the stadium will be a drain on Tasmania's economy, will fail to provide the economic benefits the Rockliff government claims it will, but will instead prove to be an unaffordable and completely unacceptable burden on Tasmanian taxpayers for years to come.

 

In view of this, why would any responsible government, opposition or elected representative ‑ affiliated with a political party or otherwise ‑ even consider supporting the stadium?

 

It is time every MP ‑ whether in the lower or upper House ‑ faces reality and withdraws support for such an ill‑considered development Tasmania has been bullied into accepting as part of the deal to be awarded an AFL team. Widespread support for a team is not in doubt, but it is clearly imperative the terms and conditions by which Tasmania can finally have one are renegotiated. The requirement to build a new stadium was always an outrageous imposition when we already have two where AFL games have been playing successfully for years.

 

Agreeing to build a third in order to have a team was always outrageous, and especially so when it was, by all reports, a 'captain's pick' and reportedly involved no consultation by Premier Rockliff with his Cabinet colleagues, never mind the Tasmanian public.

 

It must be apparent by now that in the volatile geopolitical climate ‑ never mind the world's increasingly volatile weather ‑ now is not the time to be building such a significant piece of infrastructure in a world challenged by global conflict, climate extremes (and disasters), and political and economic disruption. Quite apart from the fact Tasmania cannot afford it, there are far more important issues concentrating the minds of most Tasmanians, and Australians. Our crumbling public services ‑ health, housing, hospitals and education ‑ are quite rightly and understandably considered of far greater importance to the majority of Tasmanians than a monument to a football code that is arguably on the wane anyway, given so many other sporting options are available to both play and support.

 

Again, we urge you to do the right thing by Tasmania. Pull the plug on this socially divisive and unnecessary stadium project, reject it as a PoSS and vote against it being built at all. Tasmania does not need it and we cannot afford it.

 

I thought I would put that on the table, coming from a concerned citizen. However, another Letter to the Editor, had far fewer words, from the Mercury in January 2025, but I felt it was clever word crafting:

 

'Blindly Building', by Andrew Powell from Blackmans Bay.

 

I'm going to build a new deck at my place!

 

My mates reckon it's in the wrong place.

 

My kids reckon it will cost much more than I am budgeting for.

 

My partner reckons we already have a couple of decks, so why do we need another one?

 

The banks said I can't afford it

 

But I am going to build it anyway.

 

Bugger them!

 

It came home to me. When you get a letter and you recognise a passionate older Tasmanian when you receive pages written in pen and utilising a flowing cord cursive style. Whilst I received several pages from this gentleman about the importance of Macquarie Point from a historical perspective, he also worked out a formula for the cost of the build and maintenance of a new stadium.

 

Madam DEPUTY PRESIDENT - I reckon I know who sent it to you.

 

Mr GAFFNEY - I think so. I was also impressed with Document 8. Document 8 has some synergies with the information provided by the member for Launceston regarding venue capacity. Document 8 detailed attendance at four games in Hobart last year in season 2024, and four games in Launceston in 2024. He had also highlighted that two games also reported free tickets for spectators were available. One game had some concerns; some flights were cancelled because of fog. Another one had to start early because of some lights.

 

However, one venue - and I am hoping people listening at home can sort of figure out what I am talking about. 

 

One venue:

Game 1:15,112 people

Game 2: 11,568

Game 3: 11,128

Game 4: 11,392

Total number: 49,204 people

Average per game of 12,300 spectators.

 

The second venue:

Game 1: 4727 people.

Game 2: 4706

Game 3: 10,045

Game 4: 6619

Total number of spectators: 26,097

Average per game 6524.

 

It was reported that at two of those games at that venue, there were free tickets given away. I will leave it up to the listener to work out which venue was Hobart and which venue was Launceston.

 

Madam DEPUTY PRESIDENT - I said do not be nasty to my Roos.

 

Mr GAFFNEY - Notwithstanding the status of the proposed Macquarie Point stadium, we must not forget the importance of minor sports receiving equal funding or funding to support those. I am going to confine myself to my electorate.

 

I have to put on the record, though, the success of the JackJumpers - where the whole state has got behind the JackJumpers, whether you are a basketball lover or not, because it was all-inclusive and they have done the work. I really feel sorry for our football team, which could have had the same thing, but already there is a division.

 

There are many and varied sporting events held in the Mersey electorate and surrounds. The Devonport Regatta, or the powerboat racing, was held in March just recently. The Devonport Junior Soccer Cup, held in June 2024 ‑ this event had 132 teams, 2000 players, 313 games at four venues, 19 pitches running simultaneously, and an estimated additional 8000 people in Devonport. The event was also awarded the Community Event of the Year by the Devonport City Council. The Devonport Triathlon, held in March 2024, is one of the oldest triathlons in Australia. The Devonport Athletics Club's Christmas Carnival.

 

Not to mention the regular rosters from the many and varied sporting groups in the region, often run by hardworking and dedicated volunteers.

 

Even this weekend, the Bluff 2 Boat Ramp Run & Walk is being held in Devonport. This is Australia's richest 10‑kilometre race for both males and females, aiming for 2000 competitors. Congratulations to the organising committee, officials, volunteers and, of course, the participants.

 

Indeed, the 2025 Australian Rowing Championships will be held from 24‑30 March at Lake Barrington, and accommodation places from Launceston to Wynyard will be overflowing.

 

I am also proud to advise that Bowls Australia is hosting, for the first time, the National Lawn Bowls in Devonport and Burnie from 10‑27 November 2025, involving 6000 people over that 16‑day period. The championships will feature a variety of events encompassing all ages and abilities, including junior, open age, senior, para and open events, and should be a wonderful two weeks of competition.

I understand Bowls Tasmania is seeking volunteers to help deliver what will be the biggest lawn bowls event ever held in Tasmania.

 

The Mersey electorate also saw numerous significant community events such as:

 

• The Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra's (TSO) Symphony on the Waterfront in February 2024

• a highly successful Henley‑on‑Mersey event situated at the picturesque Bells Parade, Latrobe, which was reinstated after a three‑year hiatus

• the Don River Railway's 50th Year celebration held in February 2025.

• the Devonport Motor Show held in the March

• a number of Australia Day events.

 

It is vitally important that we continue to support an entire range of industries, activities and sports to keep our region and, indeed, Tasmania not just surviving but thriving.

 

I also make mention of the Mersey Community Hospital and the improvements which have occurred at the hospital. With the current challenges that Tasmania's healthcare system is facing, the increased capacity of the Mersey Community Hospital is welcomed by the community. The delivery of increased appointments and surgeries to the north-west play a vital role in the improved healthcare outcomes for our region.

 

My final plug is for the creative sector ‑ the arts, music and drama and groups in this state, from the TSO to the Latrobe Federal Band, which is the oldest continuing functioning brass band in Australia. It was formed in 1875, so that makes it 150 years old this year.

 

Ms Forrest - You were the original member, were you?

 

Mr GAFFNEY - I was patron. Unfortunately, at times, I feel they do not get the funding they deserve. However, having been to the theatre and to the awards, they are a creative and resilient lot and a cooperative crowd. I hope that we do not forget the vital importance of this sector and its value to our community.

 

In closing, whilst I acknowledge the government of the day has made some positive contributions, we must ensure due diligence is maintained so that future generations do not pay the price for decisions that are made today.

 

I thank the Premier for his state of the state address.

​